Apple Intel ad a ripoff of Star Trek First Contact?

The video for the Postal Service and the Apple Intel ad are remarkably similar, including similar shots and overall look. This is interesting, however if one takes in the visual feel of 2001, the lighting of Intel's own 'bunnymen' ads, the use of the white or nearly white backgrounds in other Apple and Intel adsswitchers and blue man group ads, respectivelywe can see that the overall look and feel of this ad has been done before. And the look-and-feel of an effect or mood is constantly recycled. How many times did you see the T-1000 liquid effects from Terminator 2 in tire and drink commercials?
But, more importantly, what can be copyrighted and how does that affect the 'arts.' Can't another writer use Hemingway's clipped sentances? Can't R.E.M use a Gabriel Garcia Marquez story as the basis for their "Losing My Religion" video? How far does copyright extend?
The courts need to define copyright, especially its temporal and subjective limitations, because frankly this is getting out of hand.

No, Charles, it really is shot for shot identical. That's not a similar style, that's a copy. Watch them both a couple times. At the very least Apple chose directors/writers with no talent as they apparently only have one idea.

"This is just a bit more than using the same "style and themes" though. It's absolutely identical."

No... No it's not. It's the STYLES and THEMES that DO make it similar. Like previous posters said. Artists and directors frequently work within the confines of their own STYLE. It's actually NOT lazy. You could probably make several films in the SAME style, with these same themes and some people (me) would still find it watchable.

You know what this ACTUALLY is all about?

Some people, watch the commercial, they recalled the postal service video, and put two and two together... they think they're SOOOO witty for remembering the similarities, so they go blithering it around the blogosphere, like they're found the fuckin' holy grail. Come on people. You're just not that interesting.

"This is just a bit more than using the same "style and themes" though. It's absolutely identical."

No... No it's not. It's the STYLES and THEMES that DO make it similar. Like previous posters said. Artists and directors frequently work within the confines of their own STYLE. It's actually NOT lazy. You could probably make several films in the SAME style, with these same themes and some people (me) would still find it watchable.

Good artists copy, great artists steal. -Picasso

So, what is the problem? Maybe they did copy that. So what! It's not the first time nor the first company to do such things. The whole thing is just ridiculous.

hey Bob, it all depends on the contract. If a director is hired by a firm/artist then it's usually "Work For Hire" and all media created under thatn agreement becomes the property of the company/person paying the bills.

In this case it's most likely that the record label (Subpop) owns the distribution rights and all rights to the video unless a contract stated otherwise.

Musicians don't even get to keep the rights to their own music in some of these cases, the directors rarely do, take a look at some of the director's series DVDs they will list who really owns the copyright to the videos.

Then there is the "you can't copyright a look/feel" this is not an OS this is a music video and you can be sued over a similar image. There was a case where Fatboy Slim's record label (astralwerks/skint, can't remember if it was in the US or UK) got sued by a photographer whose shot they set out to recreate for the cover of "Halfway Between The Gutter And The Stars" The label lost.

Dealin the the creative arts is not a cut and dry field when it comes to rights. Usually it goes to whoever fronts the cash.

Opps no art is new its all copied from some where I remember inside a cave somewhere the is a blood drawing that looks like a Macintosh 512 but no one complained, the world still keeps spinning and we keep mooing long live free speech and picky ......blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ...

LD, you've already won the Freak of the Week Award 'round here, so you don't have to keep competing. Again, you have absolutely no substantive grasp of the law.

I stand by my analysis of both cases. Furthermore, I expect that SCOTUS may allow end users to copy DVDs using their own purchased software when they get the issue on appeal. Doing so is basically an extension of space shifting and I think that it will be recognized as such. The entertainment world is a different place today than it was even a year ago. The Supremes may be wise enough to realize the portable (and transferable) media era is here to stay.

MacDiva, your opinion about the law is laughable given your claims to have studied it. You clearly didn't understand current case law on the DMCA nor did you understand the linked Supreme Court case about reasonable searches in public schools...you didn't even read it.

Why is it that people who know nothing about the law are always first in line to declare something a 'legal issue'? Hopefully, for the last time, the video and commercial are quite DISSIMILAR. The fact that the same directors were involved in both further negates any claim a certain deservedly obscure band might make against Apple Computer. The responsibility for using the same setting is theirs. However, I don't think the Postal Service has a claim against them, either. Its contract was fulfilled. I don't believe TPS would get very far trying to control the directors' subsequent creative decisions.

Frankly, I am amused that at least one person still thinks that the music in the commercial is by the Postal Service. Shows how little attention the naysayers actually pay to detail.